Suction systems are commonly used in dental practices, medical clinics, hospitals, and other medical operations to remove contaminated debris consisting daily in the dental office of: saliva, food debris, tarter, stain, dental bacterial plaque, tooth debris, filling debris, mucous, phlegm, blood, cleaning chemicals, and less frequently pus, vomit and chemicals spills. In the case of a dental practice, a dental suction system can comprise a vacuum pump, a separator tank, an amalgam separator, a vacuum feed line and a hand-operable suction device (evacuator) in the treatment room. The evacuator is comprised of a vacuum tip, control valve and vacuum hose. Suction systems can comprise relatively small systems for use by a single practitioner or may comprise large, centralized systems allowing for simultaneous operation within a plurality of treatment rooms. Examples of representative dental suction systems include systems as manufactured and sold by companies such as, for example, RAMVAC®, Apollo Dental Products®, A-dec, etc.
It has been recognized in the art that cross-contamination between patients, for example, dental patients, can occur when evacuators (suctioning devices) attached to vacuum lines are used to remove such bodily fluids and contaminants. Various articles, guidelines and studies have addressed the potential for such cross-contamination including: “Possibility of Cross-Contamination Between Dental Patients by Means of the Saliva Ejector,” C. M. Watson, R. L. S. Whitehouse, JADA, Vol. 124, April 1993; “Backflow in Low-Volume Suction Lines: The Impact of Pressure Changes,” G. Mann, T. Campbell and J. Crawford, JADA, Vol. 127, May 1996; “Cross-Contamination Potential of Saliva Ejectors Used in Dentistry,” J. Bargeau, et al., Journal of Hospital Infection, 1998: 40:303–11; and “Guidelines for Infection Control in the Dental Health Care Setting-2003, Center for Disease Control, 2003, all of which are herein incorporated by reference to the extent not inconsistent with the present disclosure. Such cross-contamination can occur as vacuumed bodily fluids and/or contaminants can backflow from the vacuum line into the patient's mouth/body. Backflow can occur for a variety of different reasons. For instance, if the intake is blocked disrupting vacuum flow, the contaminated fluid in the vacuum line may flow down by gravity if the suction device is tilted down toward the patient. Also, flow can be interrupted if the patient closes their mouth over the vacuum tip stopping flow or even overpowering the vacuum by sucking on the tip. In other instances, the suction device can be left tilted down inside of the patient after the control valve is closed. In yet other instances, the vacuum line or hose distal to the vacuum tip and control valve can become obstructed during use creating a temporary loss of suction flow. Finally, the vacuum source, i.e., the vacuum pump can stop, which is further aggravated if there is a vertical vacuum feed line from the ceiling that can drain down into the vacuum tube tip.
Backflow fluid can contain a variety of unwanted contaminated debris consisting daily in the dental office of: saliva, food debris, tarter, stain, dental bacterial plaque, tooth debris filling debris, mucous, phlegm, blood, cleaning chemicals, and less frequently pus, vomit and medical spills as well as microbes such as bacteria, viruses, and fungi. In some instances, microbes can travel in a reverse direction through the suctioning device in an airborne form without the assistance of a fluid carrier. Due to the potential presence of communicable diseases within the vacuum line, there is a need to provide maximum protection against cross-contamination between patients.
A variety of prior art devices have attempted to prevent the cross-contamination risk that is inherent in suctioning devices. In some instances, various valve designs have been contemplated for use in the suctioning device that would prevent backflow. However, such valves can be complex, expensive, and difficult to fully clean, disinfect, and sterilize. In other instances, parts, which come into direct contact with the patient during the performed procedure, have been designed and manufactured to be disposable and replaceable so as to attempt to place a buffer zone between the patient and contaminated portions of the suctioning valve and hose. These disposable and replaceable vacuum tips can be subject to allowing backflow in the event of a loss in suction flow and/or serve only as a buffer zone that can be quickly breached. Additionally, even if the portion of the suctioning device that comes into contact with the patient during the performed procedure is replaced for each new patient, it is generally too expensive and time-consuming to replace the vacuum hose and control valve.
Regardless of component design, the vacuum hose is difficult to properly clean and sterilize due to temperature and chemical compatibility constraints resulting in residual fluid in the vacuum hose that can lead to the exchange of unwanted and/or dangerous externally introduced fluids from prior patients. Further, it is very difficult to properly clean (scrub and rinse) contaminants from the inside of a hose, which is needed before it can be effectively disinfected and then sterilized. Additionally, the control valve attached to the hose is difficult to remove, disassemble, clean, autoclave, and reassemble. Also, sterilizing the control valve is fruitless after reattaching it to a contaminated hose. Therefore, when a new disposable/replaceable end of the dental/medical suctioning device is inserted onto the vacuum line, the patient is still at risk of being exposed to backflow or reverse traveling movement of microbes. Therefore, the current disposable and replaceable parts may provide a sense of false security to patients and practitioners.
Another disadvantage of the prior art with respect to disposable/replaceable parts is that it does not allow the operator to shut-off the vacuum and then restart it without subjecting the patient to cross-contamination from backflow as the evacuator is sloped down into the patient's mouth. Allowing the vacuum line to suck air from the general room is not a viable option as the portion of the suction device that is inserted into the patient may become contaminated from airborne contaminants. Further, a vacuum line allowed to suck air from the general room produces an unwanted and annoying hissing noise from the dental/medical suctioning device.
Therefore, there is a need for an efficient, cost-effective product that can be used with current dental/medical suctioning devices to prevent cross-contamination between patients. Such a product should allow the operator of the suctioning device to stop and restart the suctioning device without subjecting the patient to cross-contamination by backflow or having to replace any parts.